Thank you for a detailed analysis of this issue. I agree that when we see a KYC at the end of a campaign, it is cheating. Practically in all the bounty campaigns where I participated, there is a clause in the conditions about the possibility of changing the rules. I do not know what we can do it and how to change.
new method with the same goal, I think this is very cheating. KYC is just a form of new fraud in the ICO and I will not be fooled a second time. KYC is a big fraud in crypto so we must avoid it. 
Topic: A new form of cheating teams ICO (Read 784 times)
I am ok with passing KYC. It is usual measure to make sure that participant is legit. I have no problems with it.
Moreover sometimes it helps me to receive more profit,because cheaters don't pass KYC and I get their reward
You do not receive remuneration of those who for some reason did not pass the KYC check, if such a check was carried out after the end of the ICO, when the shares were calculated or even the final number of tokens was set. After all, it takes a long time to check KYC, and during this period the tokens are already counted and if someone from the bounty hunters does not pass KYC, then their tokens are simply assigned by the ICO team.Moreover sometimes it helps me to receive more profit,because cheaters don't pass KYC and I get their reward
In addition, in order to prevent multiple accounts, you do not need to violate our privacy rights .. To do this, it is enough to check accounts by IP address. Yes, and checking KYC after the end of the ICO is in any case fraudulent, if it has not been agreed upon before.
The ICO teams are now applying to bounty hunters a new form of fraud, with which something needs to be done - this is an unspecified earlier test of KYC after the end of the ICO.
As a lawyer, I can say that the conditions for joining the ICO generosity campaign are in fact one of the types of contracts with so-called implicit, that is, silent actions. The fact that we further fill out their form of accession means that we have agreed to their terms of the contract.
In any contract there are so-called essential terms of the contract, which must always be specified. If at least one of them is not specified, the agreement on the decision of the court may be invalidated. The contract price, that is, the amount payable to bounty hunters, is one of the essential conditions of the contract and must be clearly stated. If it can change, it should be indicated in what cases and by how much. Otherwise, such a contract will be invalid. If in the terms of accession it is only generally indicated that any conditions may be changed, then such a piece of paper cannot be recognized as a contract and will in any case be illegal.
If the contract is made and executed, one of the parties is not entitled to declare additional substantial payment terms that were not previously agreed
In this case, this should be considered an ordinary fraud, and the ICO team should bear the material, and in the case of the intention of such actions, the criminal liability for fraud, that is, the seizure of another's property by deception or abuse of trust.
What do you think we need to do in this case with such fraud?
I also don't like things like this. a bounty hunter like being cheated. but we cannot protest if we find this, the only way we can be paid is to follow all the rules he made.
Thank you for a detailed analysis of this issue. I agree that when we see a KYC at the end of a campaign, it is cheating. Practically in all the bounty campaigns where I participated, there is a clause in the conditions about the possibility of changing the rules. I do not know what we can do it and how to change.
I am ok with KYC but KYC should be stated in the beginning of the campaign only a lot of projects announce KYC required in the last stage which I feel is wrong because we dont kn ow what documents they will consider for KYC. Also the allocation of the bounty campaign should not be changed as they dont change allocation of team members. Now a days KYC are necessary to most of the project to list on the good exchange as big exchnages go through a lot of paperwork before listing.
Yes I agree with you, the team has no right to change the terms after the end of the bounty program, it is not professional and not fair. We as hunters performed work for them and then expect to get rewarded for it, and any obstacle on the part of the project team should constitute fraud.
this has happened a long time. most of the ico currently available are just fraudulent projecks. and indeed we should be able to be wise if we want to invest in ico. see that there is a lot of fraud now
In this case law doesn't mean because ICO is out of law, they have right to require KYC at anytime without anyone permission. KYC is not difficult and those who do not have passport or bank account, i don't know what are you doing in this world.
I am ok with passing KYC. It is usual measure to make sure that participant is legit. I have no problems with it.
Moreover sometimes it helps me to receive more profit,because cheaters don't pass KYC and I get their reward
Moreover sometimes it helps me to receive more profit,because cheaters don't pass KYC and I get their reward
I, too, have a negative attitude towards the demand of KYC for bounty hunters by companies. In the first place, the product itself does not yet exist and it is not clear why verification is needed. And secondly, in this way, projects often recruit a database of documents and sell them. And where then your data is used is not clear.
I also share the suffering. There is this coin that I joined in its bounty campaign. Just a week ahead before the bounty campaign ends when they demand passport for kyc in order to redeem the tokens. But unfortunate, I don't have any. So after months and months of doing bounty campaign, it all ends with nothing. 
Kyc is like two sides of a coin, where on the one hand it is used to avoid fraudsters who try to make a profit, on the other hand if it falls into the hands of irresponsible people, it will be misused
We never know until a project that requires Kyc to turn into fraud or legal
Most of the projects that require KYC are scam, and they will have bad intentions with our information. I have always suspected they would take action to buy our information to make more profitWe never know until a project that requires Kyc to turn into fraud or legal
The majority of the tasks that need KYC tend to be a rip-off, and they'll possess poor motives with this info. I've usually thought they'd do something to purchase the info to create much more revenue.
KYC has always been a problem. It is against the basic idea of cryptos and that is to free it from the govt and institutions and to have some anonymity while making fast transactions but it seems that KYC has been put there to tackle the growth of cryptos.
I think any ico launching with law, terms and conditions. KYC is not must . whenever project has not completely. if an ico could not complete due to various reasons. then what will value of KYC.
Now the activities of the ICO by the states are not regulated yet, therefore the ICO teams themselves do not pass any checks. Therefore, there is such a high probability of fraud in this type of activity. It is just strange for me that states allow confidential information to be collected by people who have temporarily united to launch an ICO and do not have access to keeping confidential information of citizens. In general, this is a rather serious violation of the rights of citizens.
I think any ico launching with law, terms and conditions. KYC is not must . whenever project has not completely. if an ico could not complete due to various reasons. then what will value of KYC.
The ICO teams are now applying to bounty hunters a new form of fraud, with which something needs to be done - this is an unspecified earlier test of KYC after the end of the ICO.
As a lawyer, I can say that the conditions for joining the ICO generosity campaign are in fact one of the types of contracts with so-called implicit, that is, silent actions. The fact that we further fill out their form of accession means that we have agreed to their terms of the contract.
In any contract there are so-called essential terms of the contract, which must always be specified. If at least one of them is not specified, the agreement on the decision of the court may be invalidated. The contract price, that is, the amount payable to bounty hunters, is one of the essential conditions of the contract and must be clearly stated. If it can change, it should be indicated in what cases and by how much. Otherwise, such a contract will be invalid. If in the terms of accession it is only generally indicated that any conditions may be changed, then such a piece of paper cannot be recognized as a contract and will in any case be illegal.
If the contract is made and executed, one of the parties is not entitled to declare additional substantial payment terms that were not previously agreed
In this case, this should be considered an ordinary fraud, and the ICO team should bear the material, and in the case of the intention of such actions, the criminal liability for fraud, that is, the seizure of another's property by deception or abuse of trust.
What do you think we need to do in this case with such fraud?
I maybe the disagree too, for the imposition of KYC. KYC we know that its a method to detect some accounts but it gives a burden to bounty participants since they are helping the project to succeed. Fraud is happening now in bounties because of using somebody else identity because of this KYC, i hope managers could understand this.
KYC checks should not be carried out for bounty hunters, as they are not investors in ICO projects. Carrying out such a KYC check on bounty hunters is the arbitrariness of the ICO teams. If such a KYC check is carried out without prior announcement after the end of the ICO, this is a direct fraud of the ICO teams. No excuses for such actions are logical or legitimate.
The ICO teams are now applying to bounty hunters a new form of fraud, with which something needs to be done - this is an unspecified earlier test of KYC after the end of the ICO.
As a lawyer, I can say that the conditions for joining the ICO generosity campaign are in fact one of the types of contracts with so-called implicit, that is, silent actions. The fact that we further fill out their form of accession means that we have agreed to their terms of the contract.
In any contract there are so-called essential terms of the contract, which must always be specified. If at least one of them is not specified, the agreement on the decision of the court may be invalidated. The contract price, that is, the amount payable to bounty hunters, is one of the essential conditions of the contract and must be clearly stated. If it can change, it should be indicated in what cases and by how much. Otherwise, such a contract will be invalid. If in the terms of accession it is only generally indicated that any conditions may be changed, then such a piece of paper cannot be recognized as a contract and will in any case be illegal.
If the contract is made and executed, one of the parties is not entitled to declare additional substantial payment terms that were not previously agreed
In this case, this should be considered an ordinary fraud, and the ICO team should bear the material, and in the case of the intention of such actions, the criminal liability for fraud, that is, the seizure of another's property by deception or abuse of trust.
What do you think we need to do in this case with such fraud?
I maybe the disagree too, for the imposition of KYC. KYC we know that its a method to detect some accounts but it gives a burden to bounty participants since they are helping the project to succeed. Fraud is happening now in bounties because of using somebody else identity because of this KYC, i hope managers could understand this.
Fraud will always be present anywhere and everywhere. People taking advantage of every opportunity to con or steal from others. Which is why each hunter or investor should be aware and vigilant to minimize the chances of becoming a victim.
The market of ICO projects is the Wild West of nowadays. ICO teams don’t want to bear any legal responsibility. I was faced with such stupid refusal to pay rewards for bounty tasks. The same applies to the verification procedure for participants in bounty programs - KYC. Only investors are subject to verification. Therefore, I think about the need to streamline the conduct of ICO and bounty, as well as a ban on KYC for bounty hunters.
Yes, to require bounty hunters to undergo KYC checks after the completion of an ICO, especially without prior notice when joining their ICO project, this should be regarded as fraud. Even though such a KYC check on bounty hunters is generally illegal, because we are not investors, it should be carried out only before joining their campaign of generosity ICO. Bounty hunters should have the right to choose to participate in the ICO generosity campaign in connection with KYC testing or not.
Jump to: